Withdrawal of a complaint does not absolve the competent authority of its duty to enquire into the incident and pronounce thereon, and the competent authority must comply with the court's order and decide on the complaint of disqualification.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Five writ petitions have been taken up for consideration as they involve similar issues and relate to alleged defections of Councillors in Kandi Municipality.

2. Mr. Guru Prasad Mukherjee has filed W.P. No. 9155 (W) of 2016 asking for a direction upon the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear out the writ petition filed by Mr. Guru Prasad Mukherjee under Section 21B of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 against the respondent nos. 6 to 11 of such writ petition.

3. Mr. Apurba Sarkar has filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 5941 (W) of 2018 in which he has challenged the resolution dated February 19, 2016 taken pursuant to a requisition issued by a section of the Councillors of the Municipality. There are two applications filed in W.P. No. 5941 (W) of 2018. One is an application for transposition made by one of the Councillors for being transposed to the category of a petitioner in the writ petition.

4. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya learned Senior Advocate appearing for Debajyoti Roy and Santana Roy has submitted that, Guru Prasad Mukherjee had applied under Section 21B of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 before the Sub-Divisional Officer complaining defection of a Councillor from a political party to the other. Such application has not been considered till date. The Sub-Divisional Officer has failed to discharge his statutory duties. He should be directed to discharge the same. Referring to the Order dated June 21, 2016 passed in W.P. No. 9155 (W) of 2016. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that, by such order, the Sub- Divisional Officer was directed to dispose of the application within the time period specified therein. Despite the same, the Sub-Divisional Officer had not done so.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya has referred to various provisions of the West Municipality Act, 1993 and has submitted that, it is the incumbent duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to dispose of an application complaining of defection. Subsequent defections by other members of the political party or otherwise, does not make the initial defection good. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, 2006 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases page 1 (Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.), 2007 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 270 (Rejendra Singh Rana & Ors. v. Swami Prasad Mourya & Ors.) and 2013 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases page 794 (Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal Keshari Parida).

6. Mr. Bhattacharya referring to 2004 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases page 747 (Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & Ors.) has submitted that, the process of disqualification is not a lis between persons moving the petition and the other members of the Board of Councillors. It is not an adversarial kind of litigation. Even if the petition is withdrawn, it will make no difference upon the duty of the competent authority to carry out the mandate of the statutory provisions.

7. Mr. Joydip Kar learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 18 to 26 in W.P. No. 7307 (W) of 2018 has submitted that, the three writ petitions being W.P. No. 5941 (W) of 2018, W.P. No. 7307 (W) of 2018 and W.P. No. 7308 (W) of 2018 does not contain any ground or prayer in relation to defections as sought to be canvassed by Mr. Bhattacharya. Referring to the prayers made in such writ petitions, he has submitted that, his clients as the majority requisition’s, are withdrawing the requisition, consequent upon which the impugned resolution dated February 19, 2017 was taken. He has submitted that, his clients are conceding to the prayers made in such writ petitions seeking quashing of the resolution adopted on February 19, 2017. Moreover, his clients are withdrawing the requisition given. Mr. Kar has submitted that, the Order dated June 21, 2016 has since become in fructuous as Mr. Guru Prasad Mukherjee has since withdrawn the complaint made to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer